Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

But your only frame of reference is this universe.

There is no other, so far as we know, so far as science knows, and so far as anybody CAN know. Everything else is merely speculative. That's what most people don't understand about the "alternate universes hypothesis": that it's nothing but a hypothesis, with not one scratch of evidence for it.

I don't think the hypothesis can be dismissed as easily as you suggest,

Well, check it out. You'll find that what I'm saying is true.

However, if you aren't invested in that idea enough to know, why raise it at all?

As long as there is matter, and laws that govern it, something is going to happen,

You can't use order to explain order. "Laws" mean that things have already been ordered. You've now assumed what you're trying to prove...not proved it.

We know there is matter, and we know there are laws that govern how it behaves, so given that, how can something not happen?

But why are there things, and why are there "laws"? By all expectations, there ought to neither -- just random atoms, drifting in a vacuum. What made these things organize at all? That's what the real explanation has to explain.

But, apparently, it is considered theoretically possible by mainstream science,

It's a mere hypothesis. A totally unfounded guess or mental construct. No evidence for it exists, or, by definition, ever could exist.

A mere hypothesis that obviously has unwelcome implications,

It's probably designed to. But it's still a nonsense hypothesis, so if it represents any threat to that, it's certainly minimal. The only problem with it is that some people who are desperate to escape the obvious actually cling to the alternate universe hypothesis, as if it were "science."

Okay, let all mention of the alternate-universes hypothesis be stricken from the record. I have nothing to gain by causing you to suffer that particular bee in your bonnet.

It's not my "bee." I didn't raise it. But I'm content to dispatch it, and to strike it, if you wish.

[Dontaskme]

No. You were asking what the state of disorder prior to any such concept as a "universe" would be. Because once we already have a universe, we've already got considerable order...and that's without even accounting for things like planets capable of bearing life and conscious beings.

So if we have to give an account for the very possibility of order in the universe, we can't start with, "Well, once a universe already exists..."

But you are basing your definition of "order" on the state of affairs in this universe.

Exactly so.

So then science supports the idea of the possibility of an infinite variety of states of order. There you are then, the state of order in this universe isn't remarkable at all, then.

Exactly so. If we want to explain how we live in a universe that has physical laws, we can't take the physical laws as a simple given, either. We need to say how they came to be established as 'laws.'

At the present time (in the days when THIS was being written ), we can't say how the physical laws came to be established. And when I say we, I am including you.

It's the state that things should be in, by all probability. The great surprise is that they are not like that.

"By all probability" according to what? Are you in possession of all possible information, some of which is currently unknown to science, that would be necessary to entitle you to make such an assertion?

Well, the real problem with my analogy is that it posits the existence of a car, which is already an ordered entity. Perhaps a better analogy would be to say, "When was the last time you took a bunch of random energy, threw it all up in random space, and got order out of that?" That's a little far from our ordinary experience, whereas seeing things blow up is closer to home.

But the underlying problem remains: You are looking at it entirely from the perspective of someone whose idea of order is only based on the type of order that makes his own existence possible. It may well not be possible for human beings and planet Earths to exist in any other state of order than this one, but who is to say that what human beings perceive as disorder is not the perfect set of conditions to enable an alternative kind of existence in an alternative state of affairs?

And what the Big Bang explanation says is that not only did "stuff" blow up, but it was such "stuff" as was so small as to be elemental...and yet it astonishingly "came down" in just the pattern of our incredibly-ordered universe.

Without having any other universe for comparison, how can you say how "incredibly" ordered ours is?

You are very good at responding to him. Keep up the good job.

Yes I agree bahman.

Harbal is very intelligent, and is why IC loves to engage him, he's a super challenge for him knowing full well he's met his match when it comes to common-sense, emotional and mental reasoning and stability, rationality and last but not least, super intellectual prowess. Except to say, Harbal is on another level in comparison to IC who is forced into playing the game of catch-up, sadly.

This forum is very lucky to have Harbal, and so am I so yes, make sure you keep it up Harby. You're a hard one to crack that's for sure.

[Dontaskme]

Their very existence is just an imagining

Like God.

-----

a theoretical hope on the part of speculators

Like God.

-----

But the underlying problem remains: You are looking at it entirely from the perspective of someone whose idea of order is only based on the type of order that makes his own existence possible.

Not really a problem. It's the only universe we have, or can know of.

I won't argue with that, but lets not claim to know more of it than we actually do.
Good point Harbal.

-----




What the scientific experts are saying.....
Albert Einstein, argued that imagination is more important than knowledge. His quote suggests that imagination is the source of creativity, innovation, discovery, and progress. Imagination allows us to explore the unknown, challenge the existing, and empathize with others. Knowledge, on the other hand, is limited by what we already know and understand.

[Dontaskme]

But why are there things, and why are there "laws"? By all expectations, there ought to neither -- just random atoms, drifting in a vacuum. What made these things organize at all? That's what the real explanation has to explain.

The what, why, how, questions cannot be answered... OR.. The what, why, how, is the ONE QUESTION to ALL OUR ANSWERS ...And we the seekers of absolute knowing would all BEcome ''OMNIPRESENT'' and would have no more requirement to KNOW anything ever again.

See the dilemma? feel free to fill in the gap of understanding with your own theory IC . Who's theory are we to believe, your's or mine?

That's why it would be difficult to argue with a person whose perception is different because to them it's their reality.

Just submit, surrender and concede to the absolute fact that you personally cannot know the answer to the what, why, how question, because you already are the KNOWING that cannot be known. In the same context, a mountain cannot know it is a mountain, there's simply just nothing MOUNTAINING.

Why can't you just accept things are exactly the way they are and could not have been any different - what is the constant need to EXPLAIN what is blindingly obvious and immediate right here and now, now-here without doubt or error????

Reality check: Life doesn't need to make sense. Life doesn't require explanation to be. Sorry, but if you think it does, then you will need to go back to the very beginning of life itself and witness it from that special little advantage point, and then report it back to us mortals in the here and now, nowhere in realtime present......Do you see the dilemma?

[Harbal]

There is no other, so far as we know, so far as science knows, and so far as anybody CAN know. Everything else is merely speculative. That's what most people don't understand about the "alternate universes hypothesis": that it's nothing but a hypothesis, with not one scratch of evidence for it.

I don't think the hypothesis can be dismissed as easily as you suggest,

Well, check it out. You'll find that what I'm saying is true.

I don't need to check it out, I already know that what you are saying isn't true.

We know there is matter, and we know there are laws that govern how it behaves, so given that, how can something not happen?

But why are there things, and why are there "laws"? By all expectations, there ought to neither -- just random atoms, drifting in a vacuum. What made these things organize at all? That's what the real explanation has to explain.

We don't know why there are things and why there are laws, and I have no idea on what you base your expectation that there should be neither. When we don't know something, we are not entitled to fill that empty space with whatever we like.

A mere hypothesis that obviously has unwelcome implications, Bible wise.

It's probably designed to.

Do you think scientists have nothing better to do than dream up stories to upset religious folk?

The only problem with it is that some people who are desperate to escape the obvious actually cling to the alternate universe hypothesis, as if it were "science."

I don't know your grounds for making that claim, but all I've seen is your desperation to dismiss the the idea in order to escape its implications.

Okay, let all mention of the alternate-universes hypothesis be stricken from the record. I have nothing to gain by causing you to suffer that particular bee in your bonnet.

It's not my "bee." I didn't raise it. But I'm content to dispatch it, and to strike it, if you wish.

I have no wishes one way or the other relating to the "alternate-universes hypothesis", it's just that I have no wish to see you get all agitated about it.

[bahman]

You are, actually. Your argument, that goes like this, essentially:

While it is true that random, accidental events (like the BB) don't produce order,

There is order in the universe,

therefore the BB produced it.

...is fallacious. It begs the essential question of whether or not the BB produced the order at all.

You would not let me away with trying to assume my conclusion in this way. You would -- and should- accuse me of begging the question, if I did.

Let's say that we have two sorts of Big Bangs, one leads to order and another one to disorder. I am simply saying that the second scenario is not acceptable since the universe is ordered. So we are left with the first scenario. Am I clear now?

That's question-begging. You can't deduce from the observation of order that the BB created that order. You actually can't know WHAT created it, unless you'd already eliminated every other possible alternative explanation. All you can say is, "I see order."

Are you with me?

So you are saying that a Big Bang that leads to order and it is uncaused is logically impossible?

[Will Bouwman]

I just think "agnostic" much more accurately and fairly describes the position you've claimed.

Not in my view. Tell me why you capitalise "Atheist", but not "agnostic"?

As I understand, your claim is that only the authors of some or all of the Bible, a few people confined to a small area and brief time, were divinely inspired. Further, you believe that your God wants his message to be shared, and that inspiring the people he did is the best way to achieve that aim.

Not quite the way I would put it, perhaps, but not dead wrong. The timespan is actually quite huge. And the message is literally global. And there is one better way for God to share His message, and that is, personally...which the Bible claims He has also done.

I don't think that's true. What evidence do you have that God has personally shared his message with anyone who hasn't at least heard of the Bible?

You and I are not some remote tribesman on a jungle island in the Pacific. We don't know the name or identity of any such, and don't know what God has done and will do with the opportunities available to such, though God promises to be fair. So what we can know is that whoever such a person is, he has enough revelation from God to be morally accountable to his Creator...and that you and I are much more accountable, since we know much more.

Then it isn't true that salvation only comes through knowledge of Jesus Christ.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC: You and I are not some remote tribesman on a jungle island in the Pacific. We don't know the name or identity of any such, and don't know what God has done and will do with the opportunities available to such, though God promises to be fair. So what we can know is that whoever such a person is, he has enough revelation from God to be morally accountable to his Creator...and that you and I are much more accountable, since we know much more.

Will: Then it isn't true that salvation only comes through knowledge of Jesus Christ.

The Christian notion that IC is here expressing stems from a theological definition that there is a 'natural revelation' in the sense of natural reasonability in man which, one might say, allows for the Christian message to be received. If there were no intelligent *ground* already established in man -- put there of course by the creator or built-in to the creation -- then it would not be possible for any man to *hear* the message of the Christian preacher when it did come along.

These are, I think, less Hebrew ideas and more Greek ideas since what is being talked about is anamnesis.

That is why he says:

he has enough revelation from God to be morally accountable to his Creator

What interests me is this statement:

and that you and I are much more accountable, since we know much more

Curiously, this is my basis for opposition to IC's religious apologetics. But in fact my opposition is partial and not total. Here, IC places emphasis on 'what one knows'. His appeal is to innate reasonableness. Fair enough. But what he desires, and what he says that his demiurge demands, is complete obedience and subservience. I would respond and say that *what I know* makes the demand on me that I do not submit to this appeal to a mood or tendency of subservience (which in IC's case is backed up by a terrifying threat of eternal torture and all the rest).

What I know is that I am here, I exist in this biological frame, I have intelligence and capability, and that I am in every sense ultimately responsible for all that I do when constrained in this form. To the degree that I can -- and there are harsh limitations -- I have no choice but to refrain from *casting my fate* into the hands of some abstraction or intelligence-broker (or destiny-broker) that is the Christian (demiurgic) god-concept. I only have my own self to rely on, no matter my defects, no matter the impositions imposed by destiny, no matter any force that came to bear on me and that contributed to molding me. At this point, if I choose empowered awareness, I have to take responsibility. I have to work with what I have to the best of my ability.

The entire falsely-conceived an badly-grounded metaphysical structure upon which IC preaches (predicates) needs to be revolutionized. It is not entirely a bad picture but it is one distorted by his particular zealotry.

Simply put it is true indeed that all men have a native intelligence. All intelligence and awareness can be stimulated and honed. That is what we refer to as *education*. It is essentially the same idea but refracted through a lens that has a great deal more breadth. You will of course remember that Plato did refer to the metaphor of the proper training in philosophy producing an awakening that is compared to a self-igniting spark. Perhaps he was speaking of enlightenment or something like that, but I take it to mean that all people can awaken and do awaken to their own intelligent, moral sense when they find themselves in a conducive enviroment.

[Immanuel Can]

But why are there things, and why are there "laws"? By all expectations, there ought to neither -- just random atoms, drifting in a vacuum. What made these things organize at all? That's what the real explanation has to explain.

We don't know why there are things and why there are laws, and I have no idea on what you base your expectation that there should be neither. When we don't know something, we are not entitled to fill that empty space with whatever we like.

No, of course not. But if we claim we have some explanation of the First Cause, we can't just go and beg off the question, either, by saying, "I don't know." That might be true: but it's an admission of having NO explanation AT ALL, not of having one better or more plausible than believing in God.

So it doesn't warrant anything close to Atheism. Maybe a benign agnostic stance...no more.

A mere hypothesis that obviously has unwelcome implications, Bible wise.

It's probably designed to.

Do you think scientists have nothing better to do than dream up stories to upset religious folk?

No, but it works the other way: it's not that science wastes its time on dreaming up stories...it's that those who are already at pains to get God out of the universe spend a lot of time dreaming up ways to do that. And one of the best ways to create such "stories" is to attempt to pull science over to their cause. And it's they who "dream up the stories" that try to position science and belief in God as oppositional. We do well to be skeptical of their efforts, of course: they're ideologically-driven.

You have a similar phenomenon with the COVID "crisis," the one that turned out to be such a fake and overreaction. People who wanted to promote COVID fear claimed we had to "listen to the science," and in their retelling of the story, "science" wanted us to mask, not to see each other, and to surrender our privacy to the authorities in myriad ways. And fools that we all were, we did it...because "Science"!

So when somebody says, "science says X," we need to be sure that it's really science speaking, and not merely what-ideologues-would-like-to-use-science-to-say.

The only problem with it is that some people who are desperate to escape the obvious actually cling to the alternate universe hypothesis, as if it were "science."

I don't know your grounds for making that claim,

Very simple. The alternate universe hypothesis isn't science at all. Not by any normal definition of science, that is.

Science requires evidence, empirical stuff, testing, access to data: but the AU hypothesis has zero of that. It's 100% speculative. It's a "what if" story.

But I don't really find it aggitating at all, actually. I just point out that it's silly to take it seriously, since it lacks all basis. My one and only issue with it is that some people who don't realize that, and who buy into the "science" buzz the hypothesizers put around it, trust it to be their escape from having to think about God; and that's unfortunate for them, in pretty significant ways, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's say that we have two sorts of Big Bangs, one leads to order and another one to disorder. I am simply saying that the second scenario is not acceptable since the universe is ordered. So we are left with the first scenario. Am I clear now?

That's question-begging. You can't deduce from the observation of order that the BB created that order. You actually can't know WHAT created it, unless you'd already eliminated every other possible alternative explanation. All you can say is, "I see order."

Are you with me?

So you are saying that a Big Bang that leads to order and it is uncaused is logically impossible?

Not at all. I'm saying that what you call the BB is merely the external action of God creating the universe. I can explain the BB that way: but you seem to have no explanation of the BB at all. Sometimes, you say it caused itself. But scientists say it was caused by the interactions of elements already present and volatile. So whatever you're trying to explain, you're nowhere near the First Cause, which we know had to exist, and which had to be prior to the BB.

But if God is the First Cause, we're already where we need to be on that question. We're at the First Cause in our line of backward inquiry.

[Immanuel Can]

I just think "agnostic" much more accurately and fairly describes the position you've claimed.

Not in my view. Tell me why you capitalise "Atheist", but not "agnostic"?

Oh, that's easy. Because Atheism is actually a dogma, whereas agnosticism is not dogmatic, inherently. Atheism claims to know there's no God, and agnosticism has no firm position on the issue.

As I understand, your claim is that only the authors of some or all of the Bible, a few people confined to a small area and brief time, were divinely inspired. Further, you believe that your God wants his message to be shared, and that inspiring the people he did is the best way to achieve that aim.

Not quite the way I would put it, perhaps, but not dead wrong. The timespan is actually quite huge. And the message is literally global. And there is one better way for God to share His message, and that is, personally...which the Bible claims He has also done.

I don't think that's true. What evidence do you have that God has personally shared his message with anyone who hasn't at least heard of the Bible?

Very good evidence, actually.

Consider Abraham. He lived at a time in which there was no Bible available, and not even the Torah. Yet Torah says he was, par excellence, a man blessed by God, and one who was spoken to by God. But if one had to have the whole Bible in order to be a man blessed by God, how was Abraham blessed by God? And similar things can be said for many other OT figures, as well. So it's far from unusual for God to have specific dealings with specific people.

You and I are not some remote tribesman on a jungle island in the Pacific. We don't know the name or identity of any such, and don't know what God has done and will do with the opportunities available to such, though God promises to be fair. So what we can know is that whoever such a person is, he has enough revelation from God to be morally accountable to his Creator...and that you and I are much more accountable, since we know much more.

Then it isn't true that salvation only comes through knowledge of Jesus Christ.

It depends on how we understand that claim. Abraham, the Bible tells us, was justified by looking forward by his faith to a thing that had not yet come: that God would keep His word and provide salvation. Today, men and women are saved by looking back to the same events, and by faith recognizing that God has kept his word and provided salvation. The essential difference is only the chronological direction, not the substance of the faith.

[bahman]

That's question-begging. You can't deduce from the observation of order that the BB created that order. You actually can't know WHAT created it, unless you'd already eliminated every other possible alternative explanation. All you can say is, "I see order."

Are you with me?

So you are saying that a Big Bang that leads to order and it is uncaused is logically impossible?

Not at all.

So to you, such a Big Bang is possible?

I'm saying that what you call the BB is merely the external action of God creating the universe.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. First, you have to prove the version of the Big Bang that I am offering is logically impossible.

I can explain the BB that way: but you seem to have no explanation of the BB at all.

I don't need an explanation for something that could exist. We don't have any argument against it so it exists as a scenario.

Sometimes, you say it caused itself.

I have never said that. I said it is uncaused.

But scientists say it was caused by the interactions of elements already present and volatile.

Scientists don't say that.

So whatever you're trying to explain, you're nowhere near the First Cause, which we know had to exist, and which had to be prior to the BB.

There is no point before the Big Bang.

But if God is the First Cause, we're already where we need to be on that question. We're at the First Cause in our line of backward inquiry.

That is only one scenario. I would accept it if you prove the version of the Big Bang that I offered is logically impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

So you are saying that a Big Bang that leads to order and it is uncaused is logically impossible?

Not at all.

So to you, such a Big Bang is possible?

"Such" as what? It's clear to me that there had to be a specific point at which God called all things into existence. If you want to identify that with a "bang," you can. I see no reason why not. But the difference between that moment and a genuine"bang" is that a "bang" is an accident, and the universe was created by intention.

I'm saying that what you call the BB is merely the external action of God creating the universe.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. First, you have to prove the version of the Big Bang that I am offering is logically impossible.

Already done. A BB with no cause makes no sense. You can't have an "uncaused accident," and scientists think they can tell us some of the precise elements that pre-existed the BB, so the BB itself isn't the First Cause.

Sometimes, you say it caused itself.

I have never said that. I said it is uncaused.

That would mean that the BB is eternal, which is, of course, impossible for a "bang" to be, by definition: we don't call any steady state of things a "bang," because a "bang" is a momentary event. So you'd need some prior explanation, and once again, the BB isn't the First Cause of anything.

But scientists say it was caused by the interactions of elements already present and volatile.

Scientists don't say that.

Ummm...yeah, they do. Sorry...they just do.

So whatever you're trying to explain, you're nowhere near the First Cause, which we know had to exist, and which had to be prior to the BB.

There is no point before the Big Bang.

According to science, yes, there was. Here's an example, from the U of Buffalo:

"Prior to the Big Bang — yes, before the Big Bang — the universe underwent a breathtaking cosmic expansion, doubling in size at least 80 times in a fraction of a second. This rapid inflation, fueled by a mysterious form of energy that permeated empty space itself, left the universe desolate and cold.

Only after that did the hot, dense conditions of the Big Bang emerge: As the doubling of the universe ceased, the energy of the vacuum underwent a metamorphosis, transforming into particles of matter and radiation. That metamorphosis flooded space with the superhot plasma of the Big Bang, which forged the primordial elements that went on to make the stars and galaxies we see today."


Now, this isn't a very good explanation of the events, I'll admit: did you notice that they START their discussion with "the universe" already in existence? So it means they're not even TRYING to locate any First Cause, but skipping that whole task. Still, it's very clear that these scientists are saying that "mysterious forms of energy" came not only before the BB, but also before any "hot, dense conditions" of matter, from which the BB itself is supposed to have emerged.

In any case, this sort of explanation is not at all unusual for proponents of BB theory. And your view is one that they actually reject, I'm sorry to have to tell you. But you can find that out for yourself, too. You'll find no end of cosmologists saying that the view that the BB was the first event in the universe is incorrect.

[bahman]

Not at all.

So to you, such a Big Bang is possible?

"Such" as what? It's clear to me that there had to be a specific point at which God called all things into existence. If you want to identify that with a "bang," you can. I see no reason why not. But the difference between that moment and a genuine"bang" is that a "bang" is an accident, and the universe was created by intention.

Such as a singularity that simply existed at the beginning.

I'm saying that what you call the BB is merely the external action of God creating the universe.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. First, you have to prove the version of the Big Bang that I am offering is logically impossible.

Already done. A BB with no cause makes no sense.

It makes sense. Read the previous comment and show what I am offering is logically impossible.

You can't have an "uncaused accident," and scientists think they can tell us some of the precise elements that pre-existed the BB, so the BB itself isn't the First Cause.

The Big Bang was not an accident. It is a phenomenon related to the existence of a singularity that everything starts from it. Talking about pre-existing the Big Bang is wrong. We still don't have a quantum theory to explain the singularity let put aside the points before it.

Sometimes, you say it caused itself.

I have never said that. I said it is uncaused.

That would mean that the BB is eternal, which is, of course, impossible for a "bang" to be, by definition: we don't call any steady state of things a "bang," because a "bang" is a momentary event. So you'd need some prior explanation, and once again, the BB isn't the First Cause of anything.

No, it does not mean that the Big Bang is eternal. The Big Bang refers to the point that the singularity exists.

But scientists say it was caused by the interactions of elements already present and volatile.

Scientists don't say that.

Ummm...yeah, they do. Sorry...they just do.

They are wrong. As I said we still don't have the quantum theory of gravity to explain the nature of spacetime at the Big Bang.

So whatever you're trying to explain, you're nowhere near the First Cause, which we know had to exist, and which had to be prior to the BB.

There is no point before the Big Bang.

According to science, yes, there was. Here's an example, from the U of Buffalo:

"Prior to the Big Bang — yes, before the Big Bang — the universe underwent a breathtaking cosmic expansion, doubling in size at least 80 times in a fraction of a second. This rapid inflation, fueled by a mysterious form of energy that permeated empty space itself, left the universe desolate and cold.

Only after that did the hot, dense conditions of the Big Bang emerge: As the doubling of the universe ceased, the energy of the vacuum underwent a metamorphosis, transforming into particles of matter and radiation. That metamorphosis flooded space with the superhot plasma of the Big Bang, which forged the primordial elements that went on to make the stars and galaxies we see today."


Now, this isn't a very good explanation of the events, I'll admit: did you notice that they START their discussion with "the universe" already in existence? So it means they're not even TRYING to locate any First Cause, but skipping that whole task. Still, it's very clear that these scientists are saying that "mysterious forms of energy" came not only before the BB, but also before any "hot, dense conditions" of matter, from which the BB itself is supposed to have emerged.

In any case, this sort of explanation is not at all unusual for proponents of BB theory. And your view is one that they actually reject, I'm sorry to have to tell you. But you can find that out for yourself, too. You'll find no end of cosmologists saying that the view that the BB was the first event in the universe is incorrect.

They are wrong as I stated several times. We still do not have a quantum theory of gravity so we cannot talk about the nature of spacetime at the Big Bang.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Consider Abraham. He lived at a time in which there was no Bible available, and not even the Torah. Yet Torah says he was, par excellence, a man blessed by God, and one who was spoken to by God. But if one had to have the whole Bible in order to be a man blessed by God, how was Abraham blessed by God? And similar things can be said for many other OT figures, as well. So it's far from unusual for God to have specific dealings with specific people.

Abraham is a character in a religious epic story and in this sense a character in a novel. Religious men, of a priest-class, at much later dates fitted the Abraham character into a religious novel when the gist of a judaic religious ideology had already been established. In that sense “the Bible” existed when Abraham was written in.

It is a child’s conception to *believe* that the biblical story (where Abraham is protagonized) is a chronology or historical reporting. All the books of the Bible were worked and reworked at later points (than the time they represent) by men with a religious self-consciousness.

So it's far from unusual for God to have specific dealings with specific people.

There’s hope for you yet!